Science Forums: Edtharan - Viewing Profile - Science Forums

waitforufo, on 31 January 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

No, that is what the climate change deniers are saying that climate scientists are saying.

Climate scientists are not saying that at all.

Climate scientists are saying that if you prevent energy from escaping the Earth, then that energy will build up in the Earth's climate systems. They then say, that if we want to prevent this, then we need to reduce putting the things into our atmosphere that block the energy escaping.

they know that these greenhouse gasses will slowly be reabsorbed within the systems of the Earth over time, or just break down into non greenhouse gasses. But, if we keep dumping these gasses into our atmosphere in an unregulated way, then we will put too much in (if not already) and we will get changes to the climate because of the extra energy trapped within it.

In terms of Cars. It is the difference with allowing people to drive anywhere they want, at any speed they want and have no consequences if they cause injury to someone else.

What climate scientists are wanting is road rules. They want to restrict the speed at which people drive and make them drive on the road in the correct lane because these actions will cause less harm than no regulation.

waitforufo, on 31 January 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

I don't quite understand this. Are you saying that even if people are wrong, then if there is a lot of them that are wrong, then we should just let them keep doing what they want?

Or are you trying to say that climate scientist are wrong?

If it is the second one, then it doesn't support your argument. In fact, it makes no sense about the argument at all.

If it is the first one, then what this means is that it doesn't matter who is wrong, or how many of them are wrong; if they are wrong, then they are wrong.

In that case, then it doesn't matter how many people signed that petition, if they are wrong, they are wrong.

Science clearly shows that if you increase the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, then there will be an increase in energy trapped within the climate systems. Whic, byt the way proves that WSJ is wrong.

waitforufo, on 31 January 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

It doesn't matter what they put on the line for their beliefs. If they are wrong, then they are wrong.

It is clear cut with no doubts, if you prevent the escape of energy form the Earth (by any means), then there will be a build up of energy in the climate systems. Not only that, this same effect can be seen in many other systems.

If you have any system where there is an input of amount "X" and an output of amount "Y", then if X =Y the amount of "stuff" in the system will be stable, and, if X is less than Y, then the amount of stuff in the system will be reduced. However, if X is greater than Y, then the amount of stuff in the system will increase.

This is true regardless of whether the "Stuff" is money in a bank account, fluffy teddy bears, water in a dam, or energy in the climate systems.

This FACT proves them wrong, and it doesn't matter how many people are wrong; if they are wrong, they are wrong.

What I find interesting is that in that picture, the cloaky thing billowing behind God very closely resembles the shape of a section through the human brain. At the time, dissections were considered illegal, but the only way that Michelangelo could have created such an image was to participate in a dissection.

As God is within the "brain", perhaps Michelangelo was subtly stating that God was the creation of the Human mind.

Suxamethonium, on 1 February 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

For this to be true, then humans would have to be more powerful that God.

Being all powerful, then God could create the universe where such evil could never happen, and still allow for perfect free will.

Think of this in terms of Set Theory:
Humans are finite, mortal beings. Thus the set of actions we can do is a finite set.

God, being all powerful, can perform any action. This means that the set of action available to God is infinite. It also includes all the actions of any finite set, including all the actions we could do.

Thus, God could create a universe were the finite set of actions we have do not include evil. However, we are then free to choose any action within our finite set. We have free will, and evil and suffering do not exist.

The reason this works, is because even if we have free will, we only have a finite set of actions we can choose from. As God can choose what finite set of actions we have available, then He could choose the set of actions where evil does not occur.

Suxamethonium, on 1 February 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Well God is supposed to be all knowing, so it is certain that He would have known what was happening (and be able to intervene if He wanted to). Then we can only conclude that God was willing to let then get the knowledge of Good and Evil.

But, God could have prevented this from being passed down to the next generation (and every generation thereafter) if He wanted to as well.

This presents a conundrum, because if God was willing to let them make a choice about it, He is not letting any other generation that came later make a choice. So, as far as original sin is concerned, I don't think that anyone after Adam and Eve could be held account able for their actions as their descendents had no choice in the matter. Also, in the bible God states that the sons can not be held accountable for the sins of the father. Based on that, then God can not justly accuse us of the original sin (as God himself said it was unjust).

Suxamethonium, on 1 February 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Good and Evil are not substances, they are concepts. They are a short hand for labelling behaviours that are desired or undesired.

njaohnt, on 3 February 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Here is a thought experiment:

You see someone torturing someone and you ask them why they are doing that. They answer: 'Because I choose to do so".

How would you then view this person: Good or Evil?

I think most people would consider them evil.

And now another thought experiment:

You read a story about the Ancient Greek God of the Underworld (Pluto) torturing someone: You ask Him why he is doing that. He answers: "Because I choose to do so".

Would you think that God is evil.

Apply this to any entity. If they don't have to cause suffering to someone, but they do because they choose to, then universally, they would be considered evil.

Thus, if any God chooses to cause suffering, then they are evil. It doesn't matter what their reason is, if they could choose not to cause suffering, but instead choose to cause suffering, then they are by definition evil.

If the Christian God is all powerful, then they could make the universe without suffering and still achieve whatever it is they wanted to achieve, if they can't then they are not all powerful and the Christian God is supposed to be all powerful.

So, the only reason that suffering is in the universe (if you believe that the Christian God created the universe that is) is because God chose to cause suffering. It is unnecessary in achieving whatever ends God wants to achieve as being all powerful, the presence or absence of suffering can not prevent that.

Thus, the only reason that suffering exists, is because God wanted us to suffer for the sake of suffering. This not to to teach us lessons, not to allow forgiveness, not because we sinned, or any other reason. All the other reasons could have been circumvented by God without violating anything like free will, or the ultimate ends He wants for the universe (or any single person - or even particle of matter if you want to go that far).

The only reason that an all powerful entity would create a universe with suffering in it is if that entity want us to suffer.

Now, think back to the start of this post. In each of those situations, the reason they were causing suffering is because they chose to and for no other reason. But it would be universally accepted, that an entity, whether a man or a God, that chose to cause suffering when it was not necessary was considered evil.

So, where does this put the Christian God?

waitforufo, on 30 January 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

You misunderstood what swansont said. What was said was that climate scientists don't try and predict the output from the sun, but they do look at what the output of the sun actually is and use that in their climate models.

waitforufo, on 30 January 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Think of this: You are crossing the street. You see a car heading towards you. The driver could steer away form you and not hit you, or they might not see you and thus hit you. What do you do? Do you jump off the road, or do you just stand there?

You would jump off the road wouldn't you.

It is not the possiblity that the car might not hit you that decides your actions, but the possiblity that the car might hit you that decides your actions.

waitforufo, on 30 January 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Argument of Authority is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia....al_to_authority). It doesn't matter what position they hold, or how illustrious their career is, if their arguments are not logical and not based on evidence, then they are not logical arguments.

Also, if their speciality is not in climate science, then they would not have the knowledge to make definitive statements about climate science.

For example: Would you allow Burt Rutan to direct brain surgery on you?

Probably not I am guessing. Why? Because Burt Rutan, although an amazing engineer, is not a brain surgeon and does not have the knowledge to direct brain surgery on anyone.

So, even though he might be a great engineer, this does not mean he understand climate science: He does not have the knowledge.

So, not onyl are non climate scientists not an authority on climate science, an argument from authority is not a rational argument anyway. This means your argument here fails on two points.